Science-based golf instruction

[imperfectgolfer]

Consider this Brian Manzella thread.

www.brianmanzella.com/forum/golfing-discussions/13171-blog-lets-list-all-scientifcally-correct-concepts-golfing-machine.html

Brian asks the question - what percentage of TGM theory is based on science?

How does one correctly answer that question? When does a golf instructional opinion become science-based?

I personally think that Brian doesn't have the answer to that question because his concept of a science-based golf instructional opinion is really a biased "science expert's" opinion. For example, he often quotes Aaron Zick as a scientific authority in an attempt to legitimize his "personal opinions". However, that's only a scientific expert's biased opinion, and not a science-based opinion. I think that a science-based theory/opinion must meet certain criteria.

Criteria 1: The theory must be fully explicated in prose language, so that it clearly expresses its contents in such a way that the theory can be examined for its "scientific testability" quotient.

Criteria 2: Evidence must be presented that the theory has been experimentally tested for its verifiability and falsifiability quotients.

Criteria 3: The theory must also be compared to other theories in the same arena for its "degree of informational content" relative to its "falsifiability quotient" (resistance to multiple attempts at falsification).

I have never seen Brian apply any of those criteria to Aaron Zick's opinions in his forum. For example, Brian simple states "authoritatively" that Aaron Zick has demonstrated that golfer must apply push-pressure with the right arm/hand when the clubshaft is vertical to the ground in the downswing, and the members in his forum simply accept that claim as a "science-based" claim.

(3Jack edit: Jeff, with Brian a member here please refrain from calling his members 'groupies')

I am personally not aware of any attempt by serious researchers to study the golf swing in a scientific manner.

From my perspective, the TGM system is a conceptual mental framework that can conceived to be biomechanically/mechanically/geometrically coherent - but that is not the same thing as saying that it is science-based.

Can you think of any golf instructional opinion that is science-based - other than the D-plane theory (which is not really a golf instructional opinion because it doesn't "describe" a golfer's body/arm/hand movements in space that is needed to produce a particular clubhead path/clubface orientation).

Jeff.

[imperfectgolfer]

3jack

Thank you for admonishing me. I have transgressed and I appreciate the fact that you are constantly monitoring your forum for unnecessary "ad hominem" insults. I will be more careful in future, and I will concentrate my attention on vigorous intellectual debate regarding golf instructional issues - and I will try to avoid making any unnecessary "ad hominem" comments.

Jeff.

[mudball]

Feb 19, 2010 11:55:06 GMT -5 imperfectgolfer said:

3jack

Thank you for admonishing me. I have transgressed and I appreciate the fact that you are constantly monitoring your forum for unnecessary "ad hominem" insults. I will be more careful in future, and I will concentrate my attention on vigorous intellectual debate regarding golf instructional issues - and I will try to avoid making any unnecessary "ad hominem" comments.

Jeff.

I wish I had groupies If I were Brian I'd be proud of having groupies - well done Brian you are a cool cat although you could work on your brevity if you want a tip from me - I am teasing of course here's another smiley face to prove it ;D

Jeff,

I think Homer Kelley used the art of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems - generally referred to as engineering. Which you can consider a branch of science - or as using scientific principles. Therefore science-based.

I think your question was "Can I think of any golf instruction which is science-based."
Yes have a look at - The Golf Secret by Dr H A Murray.
First he was a Dr. that always impresses me...
Secondly his book talks a lot about detail which I would struggle to reproduce at a swing speed of 110 mph. This is very similar to science as we don't need to know how the atom works to survive and put food on the table. Unless you are an atomic scientist. In which case you do need to know that stuff otherwise your bosses will stop paying you.

Whilst this may seem less than serious response - I do think there is a parallel to the golf instructor. His/her role is to get their students scoring better or working toward their goals. Therefore he needs a deep understanding of how the swing works and 'some' scientific knowledge of how the ball/club head interact. So actually D-plane is quite important for a golf coach to understand. The student only needs to know how his swing works sufficiently to maintain it under competitive play and to continue to improve through developing confidence and creativity between coaching sessions and lastly ingraining the positive traits and habits he needs to develop. Of course there is nothing to stop the student learning more... other than time, effort and their motivation to do so.

You say "From my perspective, the TGM system is a conceptual mental framework that can conceived to be bio-mechanically/mechanically/geometrically coherent - but that is not the same thing as saying that it is science-based."

Er - yes it is?! science is a broad term and covers bio-mechanical, mechanical and geometry based knowledge through studying a field such as 'the golf swing' in an organized way concerned with the physical world.

On a very important point. And Brian if you ever read this - you can send the cheque to 'Mud Ball Golf Blog' 12 Acacia Avenue, Essex.... seriously I've looked around Brian's site and seen a few of his videos. Whether he is science-based or not - he is an excellent communicator. I think a golf teacher (or indeed any teacher) will find his level of communication skills a real asset. Although his posts could be shorter ;D

Pot calling Kettle black again...

P.S. I don't really live at 12 Acacia Avenue - don't send me any cheques - I give my advice free, because that is probably it's market value

[jonnygrouville]

Ooof! This sent my poor brain spiraling back to college! As I remember it, after reading many books and sitting through hours of lectures, the academics can't even agree on what is science and what is not (although Karl Popper's approach seems to be most widely accepted).

The best thing it ever taught me was not to use the word. Too often 'science' is read as 'fact' (scientists said the world was flat and we don't even want to get started on evolution and intelligent design).

Following Jeff's critieria, you can hit a golf ball and observe and measure. You can present your results. You can propose your theory. If you have given your results in enough detail, others can consider, reach their own conclusions and agree or challenge your theory. If this is 'science', then I would agree with Jeff that I have never seen anything relating to golf instructional opinion (in line with Jeff's definition) offered for consideration in this way.